Options
What would happen if the concept of inheritance was abolished?
![[Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3dd82ccf29c861c648f3a8e95e3fc930.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,591 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Would it make it fairer if no inherited wealth was consistently held within a small part of the population?
Everything you earn in your life time you can spend on whatever you like but when you die, it cannot be left to your adult children. Obviously spouses would still inherit.
This would also include stopping parents from helping kids buy homes etc. Every person has to make their own way. Their wealth is their wealth, and not their childrens.
This is clearly an embryonic idea, with lots of pitfalls and problems - but it seems unfair that a large proportion of wealth is conserved within such a small part of the population, and you are simply lucky if you are born to it.
(I speak as someone whose parents are very keen to leave as much as possible to their children, which I understand and respect)
Everything you earn in your life time you can spend on whatever you like but when you die, it cannot be left to your adult children. Obviously spouses would still inherit.
This would also include stopping parents from helping kids buy homes etc. Every person has to make their own way. Their wealth is their wealth, and not their childrens.
This is clearly an embryonic idea, with lots of pitfalls and problems - but it seems unfair that a large proportion of wealth is conserved within such a small part of the population, and you are simply lucky if you are born to it.
(I speak as someone whose parents are very keen to leave as much as possible to their children, which I understand and respect)
0
Comments
The idea would be that you could not do this in a material way - so no help with deposits etc.
And that you enjoy and spend your money (good for the economy?) whilst you are alive, instead of just hoarding for the benefit of your own children and no-one else.
Much of the inherited wealth is locked up in property so they couldn't spend it anyway.
So the only way to achieve this would be to introduce draconian laws dictating what people can or cannot do with their own property.
The rich would do what they always do and find loopholes (offshore trusts - fake companies etc) while the "average" citizen who has probably worked like a dog to earn what they have gets penalised and loses any motivation to work to better themselves.
The government that introduces these laws becomes massively unpopular and is booted out at the first opportunity and the incoming government repeals the "unjust" laws.
Back to square one.
Which is fine - but then you couldn't leave it to your adult kids either.
Therein lies the problem. It's hard-coded into (most) parents jeans (;)) to always be able to provide for their children, even after their death, whether we - the offspring - like it or not. Even if the concept of inheritance was abolished, as others have said they'd just find other ways to pass it on. It's just the way of things; for every law and regulation, there's a way to prevent having to abide by it.
ETA - when you inherit, you could always give it to charity, thus spreading the wealth around a bit more fairly.
Obviously it's not going to happen! I totally accept what a massively unpopular idea it would be.
I also agree that the rich would find every which way to ringfence their wealth to pass on, but that is what I don't like so much. The hypothetical idea is to remove that concept.
You still have the motivation to make money in your life time so that you can enjoy it all whilst you are alive, but not to leave to adult children who should be making their own way.
I know, and maybe I will!
I know quite a few people who stand to inherit vast amounts of money. They are still sitting around waiting for someone to die, even though they are in their forties.
In some ways I'd say it has been a shadow over their lives and seems to have stopped them being motivated to get out there and do something.
How do you remove the instinct to take care of ones children? An instinct that has been with us since the dawn of civilisation itself. The only way I can see you doing that is via draconian authoritarianism.
The "cure" becomes worse than the "disease"
I would simply sell my assets to a limited company in which me, my wife, and my 2 kids each had 25% share.
Your law is bypassed.
Nicely done! :cool:
The idea is that whilst you are alive you can do everything that your instincts suggest to you - look after your children, give them a great quality of life, probably buy them an education etc but once they are adults, financially you have to stop backing them and allow them to make their own life with the benefit of what you have provided them.
In some ways, I think this sounds better! You are giving everything they need to make their own life.
There are lots of people who choose not to financially support adult children, or to leave them their fortune. I know there is a difference between choice and making something law -
I'm just trying to discuss the impact on life of not sitting around waiting for inheritance, or having things handed to you simply because of who you were born to. I'm not really trying to suggest that this actually comes into force!
Smooth work!
I don't know what the point is, or would be.! Past a certain amount of money, personally I'm not that bothered.
But if you want the trappings of wealth, earn the money and spend your days on a yacht, sipping Cristal or buying designer clothes or whatever. You'd get the benefit of everything you earn and the lifestyle that goes with it. Your children also benefit.
But your adult children have to make it themselves.
And why should you decide what I do with my wealth?
Does it go to the Government to distribute as they see fair?
Spouses inherit, but children don't??? So, both parents die before the children reach adulthood ... kids just get thrown on the street do they?
So many pitfalls and flaws in this concept it beggars belief really
I suspect red tulips is a commie in disguise.
They are upset that the wealthy can provide for their own children and instead want them to provide for his kids so he doesn't have to.
No, of course no kids on the street! I do keep referring to adult children, not little ones!
I think I did put in my OP that this is a flawed concept, so you are not getting any argument from me there!
Not sure what happens to the money - I hadn't got that far. It was just a little ponder that I had earlier.
Wow - totally busted!
Apart from being a girl. Oh, and all of the rest of it!
I don't get that impression TBH - not enough hate in their posts.
They strike me as more of an idealist.
ETA:
It would be appropriated by the state and probably end up being used to bail out rich bankers next time they demolish the economy.
Lol - I'm obviously not conveying my hate sufficiently well!
(And you are right)
I heard that the tax is like 40%. What a total disgrace. They tax people through out their life, and then tax just under half of the money they had left before the person died.